This 9 Man Rotation can be a threat, and alot of people don't know it.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are so Fing Blind

Check how many times I said LACK of vision. Check how many times I compared his lack of vision to to the great true PGs we know well.. i didn't say he had no vision.

Originally Posted by ronoranina

It doesn't take a genius to see Marbury moves to the beat of his own drum; and doesn't take X-ray vision to see he was a my-offense-first type of point guard. Marbury would rather score than use his savvy & vision to find and set up teammates or 1.he did not have the vision to set up teammates and as result relied on his scoring more. Point blank. He had the passing ability of Nash or Paul. 2.But imo his vision was not as goodas those guys. I think he compensated for this 3. lack of vision w scoring. This often distracted from the flow of offense on the clubs he ran.

I didn't say in the above paragraph he had no vision. Check below..

Originally Posted by ronoranina

As I stated in my above synopsis of Marbury, his ability to pass is not the problem. I said very clearly that Marbury's passing ability is on par w the all time greats..Did you read my response to you?? 4.It's his vision that is the issue, or lack thereof, along w his propensity to lean more towards scoring than finding teammates. It's almost like Marbury begrudgingly passed to his tms. That was the air he had about him to me.

Metro, Marbury basketball-wise is everything I've stated. He is tweener who could pass and 5.he lacked great vision. Again his assists were more of the "okay i'll pass to u because they're no better options" variety. He is not the quintessential TRUE PG. 6.His lack of vision (here i define what bball VISION IS while comparing Marbury to the greats again)-ie the ability to see the entire floor, read his teammates and defenders movements, while processing that info to make good split second decisions is the reason he is not higher on the list you site and also why he can't be considered amongst the great PGs of all time. That and his propensity for scoring over passing FIRST is what makes him what he is. These two aspects sort of act to fuel the other, a feedback loop if you will... But nonetheless they keep him from being a true floor general and legitimately great PG.

And, it you read you would see I characterized him as lacking pass first ability. I didn't say he couldn't pass. Let's be clear here my dude.

Felton however is a pass first PG or else he wouldn't be starting for Mike D'antoni. Period.

You either don't read very well, or you're mischaracterizing. Which is it??

Originally Posted by metrocard

Vision? Vision for what? His teammates were not elite players or anyone worth speaking off. No one would have been successful with the roster that was inherited throughout his years in Minnesota, New Jersey, Phoenix and NYC.

Marbury's scoring was a gift. Too many people get offended by his ability to score the ball when it actually won us a lot of games. Marbury's dynamic ability to score and pass are special. When Marbury was on, he was on.

Wow, 21 and 20. Such a difference. Thank you for clearing that up, you really made a HUGE point right there. Well, actually not. The fact that Marbury is next to Tiny Archibald just shows you what kind of class of elite PG's he's in.

This whole lack of vision thing is totally an unproven notion by you that you're really looking too deeply in, its actually thoughtless in a sense. I didn't say he was blind. You're making a unnecessary point here as it is obvious he has some modicum of court vision or else as you point out below he couldn't have the kind of averages he did. Was Marbury BLIND to the point he had no vision to see his teammates? No. You can't average 8-9 assist a game without no vision. Marbury didn't have Jason Kidd or Steve Nash vision, but he had something special that separated him from your average PG. You're spending too much energy into hating this guy rather than realizing his talents and attributes. He was a dynamic PG; history, stats and analysis will prove this.

Felton is a pass first PG...uhm. The man is averaging the same Marbury average most of his career. He spent the half of his NBA career playing shooting guard for the Bobcats next to Brevin Knight (even though that was a questionable move by the Bobcats organization). Subjective and bias, yes. This isn't really factual that Felton is a pass first PG. He's more of a dynamic PG like Marbury. He helps us with his passing and SCORING.

A pass first PG is Rajon Rando. No, Rondo just can't shoot and he is a pass-first PG. Not Felton. Felton can shoot and he is a pass first point, been watching him since he was in college, he just is n't ass good a passer as Rondo and doesn't have his vision. But he IS a pass-first point. Rando's scoring is horrible, and he shoots Free Throws like Shaq. His entire game is based on passing, not scoring. Felton is 2nd on the team in scoring. Okay so because Felton can score he can't be a pass-first point guard. That is just so wrong.Tim hardaway was a pass first point guard and he could score.That is a fact. No, its unfactual.

Nash, Rondo, Paul, Calderon. Pass first guys.

Williams, Rose, Jennings, Felton...dynamic guys.

You're confused about what a Pass first point guard is and isn't. You're confused about what a scoring point guard is and isn't. You're just confused period dude..

Originally Posted by metrocard

He didn't have any special teammates to make better. Most of those guys peaked their potential.

Marbury isn't a tweener. Nor was Tiny.

These men were dynamic and prolific PG's. Theres nothing wrong with scorer at the PG position. Parker and Billups are scoring point guards with good passing ability, not J-Kidd passing ability, but good passing ability. Yes they are tweeners as they are NOT true point guards. They are scoring point guards. We're saying the same thing you just don't want to call them tweenersThe won NBA championships and aren't the only scoring PG's to do it. I think this is the point your failing to understand. From what I read, you think pass first = successful/winning PG. No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying very clearly that Marbury is a scoring point guard who thought of himself as a true point guard, when he wasn't. That's all. You can still be good and productive/efficient and contribute to a team as a scoring PG just as long you have good passing ability. No **** sherlock.. Marbury had that. Yes he had that, obviously.

Marbury's teammates never produced numbers to begin with.
Let me run you down with the list of his teammates INCASE you forgot.

Marbury averaged 8.6 assist that season and lead the T'Wolves to the 2nd best offense in the NBA that season. Most of the success was dude to the tandem of Marbury/KG equally.

In Marbury's junior year in 1998, it was the lock out season. T'Wolves went 25-25. Marbury only played 18 games that season. So this is really null.
Marbury did however average 9.3 assist
He was traded to the NJN that season to an awful roster that included Keith Van Horn, Kerry Kittles, Kendall Gill, Jaime Feick, Scott Burrell. He played 23 games and averaged 23 ppg and almost 9 assist.

Marbury had it good when he was on Minnesota. His hubris, which is a recurring theme and character flaw that rears it's ugly head through out his career, lead him to force a trade out of Minnestoa for some ungodly and utterly retarded reason, which he calims is to be closer to home.. You don't see Durant trying to force a trade out of his small market town so he can be closer to NY. Marbury is special brand of idiot Metro. Just an aside,.. Who posts a video of themselves eating vaseline?? Damn, idk, just damn.. Sad man and this is your boy..

Marbury's senior year in the NBA at the 1999-2000 season was his first full season as a Net.

Same horrible roster as before except with the upgrade of John Newman. Nets finished with 31 wins somehow with a top 10 offensive rating thanks to Marbury's 22 ppg and 8.4 assist season.

2000-01 season, Nets finished with 23 wins as result to not an upgraded roster, only addition was a rookie Kenyon Martin, and Aaron Williams and a young Steven Jackson.

Keith Van Horn was a 15-17 scorer, not really a great go to guy to have, and I don't anyone in the NBA besides Michael Jordan or Jason Kidd that could of taken this team anywhere.

It was never Marbury's fault. His teammates just weren't good enough and history is evidence of this.

Yes the teammates he had in NJ weren't desirable. But what did Marbury do?? He showed what a douche he is by blaming teammates and becoming and complete *******, even after he gotten his wish to come back to hometown area. Chris Paul isn't in the most ideal situation in New Orleans, but he elevates those guys, stays positive and though he's not happy manages to say the right things. Why couldn't Marbury accomplish this?? Because as I've stated numerous times he lacks the psych smarts to know how to lead, how to keep his teammates up and flowing, how to navigate through the tough times-- unlike Paul, Nash, Magic, Stockton, Isiah (player Zeke), Marc Price, Tim Hardaway, Felton, etc etc.

2001-02
Marbury arrived in phoneix, only real teammate he had with Marion. The rest of the team were bench players from Tony Delk to a washed up Penny Hardaway to Rodney Rogers, etc.

They managed to win 36 games.

2nd year in Phoneix, Mabrury upgraded the Suns once he developed chemistry. They won 44 games and went into the playoffs.

Steph averaged 22 and 8 and had a clutch preformance very the Spurs in the first round.

The season after, Suns gave up on Marbury(even though he led them into the playoffs). Why did they give up on him Metro??

Marbury went to New York and LED them into the playoffs against the Championship Nets.

So the question is about Marbury's ability to be a leader and lead his team to some level of winning. The question is the management of the teams he played for. These franchises didn't have commitment to Marbury, therefor you can't blame him. These franchises never had good rosters to begin with and Marbury did the most he can with them.

The argument that Marbury is a cancer/loser is a really weak and thoughtless argument that a lot of people like to pick up because the media has instilled that in their brain.

Why was he expendable in NJ?? Politics?Why wouldn't they keep their only gem. Maybe because he is actually a cancer and the media is actually doing what they get paid to do, which is report what they see and hear. I don't believe everything I read. But when alot of people are saying the same thing there's something wrong. You know the old saying where there's smoke.. You can continue to ignore it if you want to.You wanna post obscure articles...

The strange and sordid saga of Stephon Marbury
Posted at 9:45 AM on March 2, 2009 by Chris Dall (1 Comments)

Remember when?

The year was 1997. The Vikings were coming off a mediocre season and a playoff thrashing by Cowboys. The Twins were in the midst of their late 90s swoon. And the Minnesota Timberwolves looked like they were about to embark on a long era of prosperity and become the biggest team in town.

I know, it's hard to imagine. The Wolves would finish 40-42 that season and lose in the first round of the playoffs, but what had fans really excited was the duo of 2nd-year player Kevin Garnett and rookie Stephon Marbury. By that point fans had begun to realize what a special player Garnett was, with his size and freakish athleticism. Marbury was the rare point guard who could be a great distributor and scorer, a player who could break down defenses and had no fear of taking the big shot.

Marbury and Garnett were going to be the next generation Karl Malone and John Stockton, minus the short shorts. A power forward and point guard combination that would be unstoppable. All GM Kevin McHale had to do was put the right pieces around them.

Alas, it wasn't meant to be, and I don't need to go into all the painful details. That brief moment of hope was shattered in the strike-shortened 1999 season, when Marbury, irked by Minnesota winters and Garnett's $126 million contract, forced a trade to New Jersey. Marbury claimed he simply wanted to be closer to home, but it was pretty clear that being Robin to KG's Batman was not enough for him. Though the Wolves had several good years after that, they never found another player who could complement Garnett in the same way.

I wonder if Marbury regrets that decision. My guess is probably not, but he should. Let's review Starbury's illustrious career. Two-plus seasons in New Jersey, one All-Star Game, no playoff appearences. Two-plus seasons in Phoenix, one All-Star Game, one playoff appearance. In five seasons with the Knicks, the team of his childhood, Marbury made the playoffs only once and never made an All-Star game. He's never even sniffed an NBA title. And two of the teams he played for, New Jersey and Phoenix, got significantly better after he left.

Marbury has compiled great numbers all the way. He's averaged nearly 20 points and 8 assists a game. But if you're looking at the pros and cons of Stephon Marbury as a basketball player, those would be the only items in the pro category. He's never shown any interest in being a team player or a leader. Along the way, Marbury has alienated teammates, gotten several coaches canned, and nearly taken down an entire franchise with his behavior. Then there was his stellar effort with the 2004 Olympic basketball team, the one NBA-led Olympic squad not to bring home gold. Throughout his career, Marbury has given a bad name to term "clubhouse cancer."

There is a good side to Marbury. In 2006 he launched an apparel company to produce and sell basketball shoes for $15. He donated a million dollars to the Hurricane Katrina relief fund. He pays barbers to give free haircuts in Coney Island. This Stephon Marbury exhibits a knowledge of and sensitivity to social problems, and a willingness to do something about them. There aren't a lot of players like that in the NBA, or in any professional sport for that matter. But that awareness of the bigger picture has never translated into his work on the court.

Things got so bad this year that the Knicks were not only paying him not to play, they were paying him to stay away from their team. That situation ended on Thursday when the Knicks bought out the $20 million remaining on Marbury's contract, freeing him to take his "talents" anwyhere he wanted.

And now he's been reunited with his old friend Kevin Garnett in Boston, where he'll get the chance to compete for the championship that has long eluded him. A guy who once coached Marbury, Flip Saunders, says a "humbled" Marbury will help the Celtics win. Others aren't so sure.

This might be the opportunity for Stephon Marbury to redeem himself and reclaim his career, and maybe he deserves a chance to do that. But I also find it a bit galling that a guy who's never shown any understanding of how to play winning basketball has found a way onto a team that could be fighting for a title in June.

Can you consider the above writer objective??> I'd say his point of view is consistent w what we've seen. He even highlighted Marbury's efforts w the cheap sneaker campaign. Bottom line is nobody's all bad, but Marbury clearly has his flaws.. He couldn't even cut it on the championship caliber Celtics. He simply can't fit in, which sort of flies in the face of being on a team, a TEAMMATE! You clearly don't get this. This is why he's gotten shipped/moves from place to place, team to team. He is a modern-day NBA vagabond. We all know where he is now. Maybe he'll learn something across the world on his lame-ass squad. He is fuggin loser..

Originally Posted by metrocard

Rono

I'm talking about the mainstream media who has an agenda against Marbury.How do you differentiate who does and doesn't have an agenda against Starfairy?? Do they all have an agenda?? Are none of them being objective? That would seem like a lot of journalists w an agenda? I wonder how you know that for sure.. My article and my arguement crushes your statement. Not so Metro.. Lol.

You didn't post original info, all the info you stated was from my post...just a simple reply.

You imbecile, you went from saying Marbury had no vision to now he doesnt have vision of the greats. I broke down your arguement and now you're changing it. Don't you see how weak it is? You were better off admitting than you were wrong. Now your all pissy telling me to stfu because your mad right now. This is how I do it, whether you like or not. Next time don't be so stubborn and save yourself the embarassment.

It isn't ludicrous for Marbury to call himself the best PG in the NBA especially at the time when he was a top 3-5 PG in the league behind Kidd and Nash. It's ludicrous unless you bull-ride his **** as you do Metro. Nash was playing some of the best PG we've seen in history at the time of his ridiculous statements. Those comments show his HUBRIS, which you are clearly blind to because you choose not to open your eyes!!Its good for a player to have confidence, if you get mad at that; you have no life. Seriously? Really? Stop dude. You're the one that is clearly known around the forums as not having a life. Hell, the only reason I have time to go in on you like this is because it's the weekend. You obviously have plenty of time during the week (when you posted that first "well-researched", long, ridiculously stupid ass rebuttal) to do all of the research you do so you can have tardcore status on a message board. Lame.

Your assessment is poor, because you're not looking at the quality of his teammates. I posted clear evidence who his teammates were and a moron like you wouldn't even known these players existed if I didn't post them. Marbury didn't have a supporting cast and no one special to elevate, nor he didn't have enough time to elevate them(New team, new coaches, new system). This is common sense and not even a hard looked into assessment. Use common sense kid.

The team he left in Minnesota was good. His supporting cast was good there. Why did he leave them? Why Metro?>>>>>>Because he's an idiot? Arrogant? Why would you leave a team w a HOF bigman?

Marbury not playing for the Knicks is clearly a political decision rather than his ability. D'Antoni always had a vendetta against Steph, so we can leave it at that. Stop being lame and do your research. Thanks. Stephon is 33 now, you're comparing him to a prime Raymond Felton. My point is that if Marbury were the kind of player (pass-first) and had the kind of heart and mentality that Felton has he'd be playing on our team. Kidd starts for Dallas and he's like, what, 36. He could still be starting for this team if he was a desirable kind of PG. Right now about all he's desirable to is teams oversees. You can't see this because you are blind. Marbury is a loser. That is why I call him a fraud. Great players don't end their careers oversees. They end them here, in the LEAGUE. Your foolish to continue arguing against history. History is on my side here. I'll let you continue to make excuses. Maybe you'll run out of them soon, but I doubt it as you're full of it dude. This debate proves as much. Congratulations.

Congratulations to you Metro - for making the most excuses possible for a player that just could not get out of his own way throughout his career..

Starbury was a great playmaker and scorer but guys like Kidd and Nash are two of the best ever. Still, the Starbury led suns lost to the Spurs in the 1st round of the playoffs winning only one game. However, Jason Kidd and the Nets made it to the Finals that same year....and lost to the Spurs, winning only one game. Im not saying Starbury was better then Kidd, at scoring he was but again Kidd is one of the best playmakers ever. He was a better fit with high risers like kenyon martin and richard jefferson. Kidd also had Kmart in his 2nd year where as he was a rookie when he was starburys teammate. I never really understood the whole "hes not a true point guard" sh*t.....He did a great job of settin up his teammates. You dont have to be kidd or nash to be a great playmaker.

You ignored several of the points metrocard made, and that supporting cast in minny aside from KG was decent at best, but probably not even. Maybe he shoulda stayed but not everybody is kevin durant, several players have gone to other teams to sign bigger deals and are still looked at as great players. I dont blame him for signing with new jerz, its much closer to new york and its a better state with better weather.

You obviously have a bias towards Marbury. The fan almost always has the more valid opinion then the hater. Its like music, someone can be a stan of a rapper and argue with someone who hates that rapper but who knows that rappers discography better? Most likely the fan.

When your a hater, naturally your gonna put a negative twist on things while fans are more likely to put a positive twist on things. The question is whos right? As long as the fan acknowledges the negatives of the basketball player, then i would say their opinion holds more weight. Love and Hate blind from the truth and the way you continually bash starbury, its obvious that your a hater. If your willing to type essays focusing on the negatives of anyones career, do u know what that makes u? A hater. Especially with somebody like Starbury that got bought out a few years ago. Congrats, you just earned your PHD..playa hatin degree

In any situation where theres someone that blindly loves or hates on an athlete/musician/celebrity/etc., its not even worth listening to their opinion.

Starbury was a great playmaker and scorer but guys like Kidd and Nash are two of the best ever. Still, the Starbury led suns lost to the Spurs in the 1st round of the playoffs winning only one game. However, Jason Kidd and the Nets made it to the Finals that same year....and lost to the Spurs, winning only one game. Im not saying Starbury was better then Kidd, at scoring he was but again Kidd is one of the best playmakers ever. He was a better fit with high risers like kenyon martin and richard jefferson. Kidd also had Kmart in his 2nd year where as he was a rookie when he was starburys teammate. I never really understood the whole "hes not a true point guard" sh*t.....He did a great job of settin up his teammates. You dont have to be kidd or nash to be a great playmaker.

You ignored several of the points metrocard made, and that supporting cast in minny aside from KG was decent at best, but probably not even. Maybe he shoulda stayed but not everybody is kevin durant, several players have gone to other teams to sign bigger deals and are still looked at as great players. I dont blame him for signing with new jerz, its much closer to new york and its a better state with better weather.

You obviously have a bias towards Marbury. The fan almost always has the more valid opinion then the hater. Its like music, someone can be a stan of a rapper and argue with someone who hates that rapper but who knows that rappers discography better? Most likely the fan.

When your a hater, naturally your gonna put a negative twist on things while fans are more likely to put a positive twist on things. The question is whos right? As long as the fan acknowledges the negatives of the basketball player, then i would say their opinion holds more weight. Love and Hate blind from the truth and the way you continually bash starbury, its obvious that your a hater. If your willing to type essays focusing on the negatives of anyones career, do u know what that makes u? A hater. Especially with somebody like Starbury that got bought out a few years ago. Congrats, you just earned your PHD..playa hatin degree

In any situation where theres someone that blindly loves or hates on an athlete/musician/celebrity/etc., its not even worth listening to their opinion.

So your opinion means nothing then?? K..

I sympathize w Marbury. He's a sad clown.

But honestly though, the only thing I don't respect is his hubris. I wouldn't call myself a hater. I think I was pretty objective as I've acknowledged the strengths of his game all along.

But honestly though, the only thing I don't respect is his hubris. I wouldn't call myself a hater. I think I was pretty objective as I've acknowledged the strengths of his game all along.

True but its the different variations you used of saying his name and the fact that your taking alotta time to point out his negatives that makes me think you hate him. Its ok, I hate some athletes too....Rondo

I can see why you would make that argument but like you did acknowledge some of his strengths i thought you downplayed some of them, to be honest i only read your most recent post. Ill try to go back and read more after the game

If you want me to list his problems I will. But alotta his negatives are negatives but not as bad as they really sound. Like the whole every team gettin better after he leaves. Garnett got better after he left in Minny and Metro already made the other arguments. The media clearly put a negative twist on at least some of the things that happened. I remember with the whole him leaving the team and the plane incident, the report about his basketball mentor dying didnt come out until a few months later. Hes not the strongest person mentally but he came from a rough environment, he lost his pops and his mentor in the same year i believe. After that he was never really the same, although he wasnt a problem at all in Boston. His offense wasnt anything that good, but he played good defense for him. The fans liked him, and in the playoffs he helped the Celtics win game 5 against the Magic. They lost in 7 games i think w/o garnett, but if it wasnt for the 3rd quarter he had in game 5 that series woulda been over sooner. And it might seem like im reaching here, but....well of course i wouldnt wanna see the knicks lose, but Id prefer to go out in 7 games instead of 6. At least you can say you pushed the other team and made them work hard for it.